Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0022-2380
abstract This paper identifies four sets of textual practices that researchers in the field of
organization and management theory (OMT) have used in their attempts to be reflexive. We
characterize them as multi-perspective, multi-voicing, positioning and destabilizing. We show
how each set of practices can help to produce reflexive research, but also how each embodies
limitations and paradoxes. Finally, we consider the interplay among these sets of practices to
develop ideas for new avenues for reflexive practice by OMT researchers.
INTRODUCTION
Reflexive research has been attracting increasing attention in organization and manage-
ment theory (OMT) in recent years, leading some to argue that theory construction has
turned inward to become largely an exercise in disciplined reflexivity (Weick, 1999,
p. 803). While reflexivity has been a concern for some positivists and neo-empiricists (see
Johnson and Duberley (2003) for discussion of the methodological reflexivity employed
by such researchers), we focus on critical, interpretive work that conceptualizes social
reality as being constructed, rather than discovered, during research. Such work has
defined reflexivity as research that turns back upon and takes account of itself (Clegg and
Hardy, 1996a; Holland, 1999), to explore the situated nature of knowledge; the institu-
tional, social and political processes whereby research is conducted and knowledge is
produced; the dubious position of the researcher; and the constructive effects of language
(Cals and Smircich, 1999).
Researchers in organization and management theory (OMT) have engaged in a range
of practices in both conducting and writing up research, in their efforts to be reflexive. In
the case of the former, reflexive practices are those embodied practices in which the
researcher engages in relation to research subjects, practitioners and students (e.g. Boje
and Rosile, 1994; Cunliffe, 2002a, 2002b, 2004). Researchers have therefore studied the
ways in which they can act reflexively to foreground other participants voices, especially
when they conduct their empirical work. The emphasis is on embodiment and lived
Address for reprints: Mats Alvesson, Dept of Business Administration, Lund University, PO Box 7080, 220 07
Lund, Sweden (Mats.Alvesson@fek.lu.se).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Reflecting on Reflexivity 481
experience in addition to language use, in relation to others who are not necessarily
other researchers (e.g. Barge, 2004; Cunliffe, 2002b). In the case of the latter (the ways
in which researchers write up their research), language use is situated more narrowly
(in relation to the academic community) and the other is predominantly other
researchers. This approach to reflexivity is conceptualized as an epistemological prac-
tice that emphasizes intellectual critique (Barge, 2004, p. 70) as predominantly textual
practices are used to invoke and present various forms of reflexive analysis. As a result
and other forms of intellectual engagement notwithstanding the emphasis is on
textual practices used by researchers to present their work reflexively (e.g. Clegg and
Hardy, 1996a).
It has been argued that it is the textual practices underpinning intellectual critique
which have attracted the most attention (Barge, 2004; Cunliffe, 2003). As a result, a
reappraisal of these practices is warranted to assess how reflexivity can contribute to
research, and also to consider the ways in which it can be problematic (Lynch, 2000;
Weick, 1999). In this way, we hope to contribute to the current debate about reflexivity
in OMT in a number of ways. First, we show a range of ways in which reflexivity has
been practiced in the way the OMT literature has been written. Second, we identify how
these practices can slide into being unreflexive. Third, by drawing on four sets of textual
practices that are commonly used in the literature, we show how, by combining and
differentiating them, we can encourage new reflexive directions.
The paper is structured as follows. First, we provide a brief overview of four particular
sets of textual reflexive practices used in OMT that we have identified from the literature
and show their contributions. Second, we then explore some of the ways in which each
may fail to meet its own reflexive aspirations. Third, we use our framework to show how
a different reflexive approach might be achieved by combining and differentiating these
practices. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of some of the implications of our
approach to, and recognition of, multiple reflexive practices.
[H]olographic illusions of depth, contour, shade and shape and, sometimes, movement
are entirely dependent on the relationship between the observer and the observed: they
only come into being in the process of interaction. (Keenoy, 1999, p. 10)
Drawing on Rortys (1989) warning about the danger of believing in the superiority of
a final vocabulary, the reflexive researcher uses a set of practices involving the juxtapo-
sition of perspectives to draw attention to the limitations in using a single frame of
reference and, in so doing, provide new insights. It is the accumulation of these perspectives
that amounts to reflexivity: the use of different perspectives is enlightening in that it helps
to complement otherwise incomplete research. For example, Knights and McCabe
(2002, p. 235; emphasis added) use rational managerialist, critical control, and processual
interpretations to build on earlier approaches [to TQM] in the anticipation we might
move beyond our present understanding. These practices help the researcher to break
the habits of routine thought and see the world as though for the first time (Cooper and
Burrell, 1988, p. 101). They construct reflexivity as instructive and enlightening by
helping researchers to answer the question: what are the different ways in which a
phenomenon can be understood and how do they produce different knowledge(s)?
Third, various literary techniques have been employed to open up space for the Other
in research accounts through the self-conscious use of writing techniques, e.g. reflexive
ethnographies, literary autoethnographies, narratives of the self (Hayano, 1979) and
applied in OMT through the use of fiction, drama, and narrative (Czarniawska, 1997;
Hatch, 1996). By being more creative and experimental in writing, researchers can
bridge the gulf between self and other by revealing both parties as vulnerable, experi-
encing subjects working to coproduce knowledge (Tedlock, 2000, p. 467).
Multi-Perspective Practices
This reflexive researcher is a traveller, periodically moving from place to place so that he
or she may see things differently. Thus, writers tend to speak in terms of a journey
through the paradigms (Hassard, 1991), bridging paradigms (Gioia and Pitre, 1990), and
crossing paradigms (Schultz and Hatch, 1996). He or she is also a builder or bricoleur,
piecing together a richer, more varied picture by viewing research their own or others
from different angles. These practices guard against theorizing that presents an unam-
biguous view of reality represented in the form of a single grand narrative, not by
dismissing the foundational claim of any single perspective that it offers a better under-
standing of reality (as destabilizing practices tend to do), but by showing how other
perspectives provide different understandings and, by combining them, greater insight
might be achieved.
This approach nonetheless raises a number of questions. First, researchers recognize
that no single paradigm, metaphor, or theory can account for the language games in
which it is embedded (Cals and Smircich, 1999). How is it, then, that rotating among
a selection of them can do so, when each is individually flawed? Second, how does one
combine the different perspectives? Schultz and Hatch (1996) note three different ways
in which researchers link the paradigms: incommensurability, where researchers focus
on the differences; integration, where researchers ignore the differences; and crossing,
where researchers engage with the differences in one of four different ways (sequentially,
in a parallel manner, through second order concepts and by interplay). The result is a
complex set of choices for the reflexive researcher. Third, how can researchers apply all
paradigms equally when they inevitably have a preferred position (Parker and McHugh,
1991)? Some have argued that it would require a quasi-religious conversion (Lewis and
Kelemen, 2002, p. 265) to do so. Multi-perspective reflexive practices thus evoke pan-
theism in worshipping multiple paradigms, metaphors or theories, researchers assume
that the problems associated with any individual theory are overcome. The paradox is
Sources of inspiration Rorty, 1989; Burrell and Hayano, 1979; Clifford Latour and Woolgar, Foucault, 1980; Derrida,
Morgan, 1979 and Marcus, 1986 1979; Bourdieu and 1982
Wacquant, 1992
OMT examples Hassard, 1991; Alvesson, Jeffcutt, 1994; Boje and Oakes et al., 1998; Hardy Cals and Smircich,
1996; Schultz and Hatch, Rosile, 1994 et al., 2001 1991; Knights, 1992
1996
Means used Multiple paradigms, Auto-ethnography, Actor network theory, Opposing epistemological
metaphors, theories experimental writing epistemic reflexivity assumptions,
deconstruction
Key questions asked What are the different Can we speak What is the network of What are the conditions
ways in which a authentically of the practices and interests and consequences of the
phenomenon can be experience of the Other? that produces particular construction of a theory
understood? How do they If so, how? What is the interpretations of or a fact?
produce different relationship between Self knowledge?
knowledge(s)? and Other?
Focus on Frame Authorship Actors/positions within a Theory/epistemology
Reflecting on Reflexivity
network/field
Orientation of reflexive Enlightening: reflexivity Enfranchizing: reflexivity Exposing: reflexivity Cross examining:
research complements incomplete redresses imbalance reveals role of reflexivity challenges
research between researcher and institutional forces dangerous research
subject
Epistemological and Single ontologically-fixed No ontological or A variety of ontological False ontological status is
ontological assumptions phenomenon can be epistemological position and epistemological exposed by a different
known in different ways outside the text positions are adopted as epistemology (of an
from different the researcher navigates outside observer)
epistemological the field
perspectives
487
Multi-Voicing Practices
Multi-voicing practices force the researcher to ask questions about the relationship
between the author and the Other and to consider whether, and how, the researcher can
speak authentically of the research subject. Reflexive researchers open up texts to
multiple readings; to decentre authors as authority figures; and to involve participants,
readers and audiences in the production of research (Putnam, 1996, p. 386). In so doing,
the intention is to undermine the authority of the research account, which is merely one
representation among many, and the privileged power position of the researcher by
giving the reader and/or research subject a more active role in interpreting meaning
(Marcus, 1994). By engaging in these practices, the reflexive researcher acknowledges his
or her identity as a participant in the research and confesses any sins in terms of
personal interests or rhetorical manoeuvres. The reflexive researcher is just another
subject, albeit one with the artistic and literary skill necessary to carry out these practices
successfully (Vidich and Lyman, 2000).
Paradoxically, practices to downplay the researcher and give greater space to the
subject often end up drawing considerable attention towards the researcher (Clegg and
Hardy, 1996a). New forms of writing have often placed the researchers personal expe-
rience centre-stage (Van Maanen, 1988). In this way, these practices have been criticized
for turning the self (of the researcher) into a fieldsite (Robertson, 2002) at the expense of
the empirical work in question (Fournier and Grey, 2000) because researchers tend to be
more interested in our practices than in those of anybody else (Weick, 2002, p. 898). It
is this narcissism that shows the limitations of this approach: the impossibility of giving
everyone associated with the research researcher, research subject and reader a voice,
let alone an equal voice, even with the best intentions.
Positioning Practices
Positioning practices draw attention to the various political, cultural, and institutional
constraints embedded in the academic community. They locate the reflexive researcher
in this landscape: subjected to and resistant against the controls embedded in profes-
sional networks of individuals and institutions (Clegg and Hardy, 1996a). He or she
recognizes the way in which research and researcher are influenced by the shared
orientations of a particular research community, whose conventions not only conceal
but actively misrepresent the complex and diverse processes involved in the production
and legitimation of scientific findings (Mulkay, 1992, p. 69), as well as the political
Destabilizing Practices
Destabilizing practices are powerful in their ability to call theorizing to account for itself
and to point out a lack of reflexivity, usually on the part of others. The reflexive
researcher is disruptive, willing to unsettle the academic community, and to make
trouble, especially for research that is readily accepted in the wider academic commu-
nity. As an insurgent, the reflexive researcher challenges research by taking up a place
outside the target project, which is usually undertaken by other researchers, and then
infiltrates it in order to undermine its very foundations its claims to knowledge and
progress by asking fundamental questions about the conditions and consequences of
its construction. In this way, the reflexive researcher makes regular incursions over
a metaphorical border between different epistemologies, bringing the preferred one
(usually Foucauldian or Derridean) to bear on and undermine the other (usually a
mainstay of more orthodox work).
These reflexive practices nonetheless embody a paradox in that they are used to
produce an authoritative text, while relying on a set of assumptions that stresses that
there can be no such thing. Researchers assert that, by engaging in these reflexive
practices, they can create sufficient distance to reflect on the assumptions, reasoning, and
knowledge inherent in someone elses research project, and to see something that others
do not. For example, Knights (1992, p. 516) points to how he has been able to identify
the philosophical, political, social, and economic rules of formation that underlie the
Combinations
One conclusion that follows from the identification of four separate sets of practices is
that, by combining them, we might generate additional questions for researchers to
consider.
For researchers employing multi-perspective practices, the addition of multi-voicing prac-
tices might help them explore how their use of multiple perspectives constructs the
author in different ways. For example, does the author emerge out of one particular
perspective and then apply other perspectives? Does a home position provide a richer,
more informed reading, while other perspectives are used in a more selective, pragmatic
way? Or does the author (or different authors) emerge from where the perspectives
overlap or, even perhaps, from gaps where the perspectives do not connect? (Is there, in
fact, such a space and, if so, how might we conceptualize it?) How do the relationships
between research subject and researcher-as-subject change according to the different
perspectives that are used? Are some voices always left out, regardless of the choices
made regarding perspectives; or does the discovery of new voices produce new per-
spectives that embody different relationships among self and (the search for) Others?
Positioning practices help to interrogate how the choice of perspectives is influenced
by time and context. Arguably, there are structured sets of positions or templates for the
use of multi-perspective practices that are institutionally supported and rewarded. For
some time, multi-perspective studies have typically used Burrell and Morgans (1979)
original paradigms. What is the political agenda associated with particular choices? How
do new choices emerge and become legitimated? How are particular paradigms pro-
duced out of the relationships among researcher, research community, and the available
resources, i.e. accepted conventions related to theoretical developments in the field?
Finally, the application of destabilizing practices might lead to a different dynamic:
instead of the sequential or parallel use of perspectives to build on each other, researchers
might use them to undermine each other and to interrogate the relationships among
Identity and position of Traveller, builder, Participant, confessor, Networker, politician, Trouble maker,
the reflexive researcher bricoleur: viewing own artist becoming part of adventurer-explorer: infiltrator, insurgent:
research or the research the research project, on a navigating the broad making incursions from
of others from different par with other research social landscape in which outside the project of
positions subjects research and researcher another researcher
are embedded
Paradox Pantheism: ends up Narcissism: ends up Heroism: ends up Omnipotence: ends up
advocating the use of a drawing all attention to implying an astute claiming authority using
range of perspectives the researcher when researcher can negotiate an epistemology which
when the grounds for trying to downplay the system constraints while stresses there is no such
choosing any one are researcher repudiating agency thing
problematic
Reflecting on Reflexivity
Limitations Strategies for selecting It is impossible to give Solutions for navigating Tends to be used to
particular perspectives are everyone a voice (let the collective research undermine research done
unclear, and the alone an equal voice) process are highly by others, difficult to use
particular way in which individualistic to develop or build theory
the perspectives are
juxtaposed remains
contested
491
Dialectical Differentiation
In this section, we show how the four sets of reflexive practices might usefully differen-
tiate between those that emphasize avoiding problematic or dangerous things intel-
lectually, politically or ethically and those that try to produce new insights. We refer to
the former as D-reflexivity: D stands for deconstruction, defence, declaiming, destabilizing
and danger-warning. We call the latter R-reflexivity: R refers to reconstruction, reframing,
reclaiming, re-presentation. Of the four sets of practices above, destabilizing and posi-
tioning practices are mainly concerned with D-reflexivity, as their aim is to undermine
positive claims to results and contributions, while multi-perspective and multi-voicing
practices are related to R-reflexivity in that they encourage consideration of alternative
views.[2]
D-reflexivity practices challenge orthodox understandings by pointing out the limita-
tions of, and uncertainties behind, the manufactured unity and coherence of texts, as well
as the way in which conformism, institutional domination and academic and business
fashion may account for the production of particular knowledge. It engages with the
problems, uncertainties and social contingencies of knowledge claims whether empiri-
cal claims, concepts or theoretical propositions. By emphasizing how social science
orders the world in a particular way, power/knowledge connections are illuminated and
truth-creating effects are disarmed. These practices are conducted in attempts to coun-
teract harm to challenge efforts to stabilize the view of the world in a particular way and
expose the unreflexive reproduction of dominant vocabularies, rules or conventions in
social research. More radical practices deconstructive or Foucauldian emphasize the
arbitrary and subjectivity-shaping character of knowledge, while weaker practices
encourage moderate scepticism around interpretive and textual moves to convey legiti-
macy, certainty and closure. In both cases, the aim is to challenge the text in fundamental
ways to question the chosen elements of the logic of the research project and its
outcomes, showing them to be associated with particular paradigmatic roots and per-
spectives; with forms and politics of representation; and the socio-political forces of
research.
R-reflexivity is about developing and adding something; the R-reflexivist is in the
construction rather than demolition industry. It means bringing in issues of alternative
paradigms, root metaphors, perspectives, vocabularies, lines of interpretation, political
values, and representations; re-balancing and reframing voices independently of data in
order to interrogate these data in a more fundamental way. Instances of alternative
constructions and reconstruction of fundamental elements of the research project are
central to these reflexive practices. R-reflexive practices are employed to illuminate what
is left out and marginalized: the (almost) missed opportunity, premature framing, repro-
duction of received wisdom, re-enforcement of power relations and unimaginative label-
ling. They provide alternative descriptions, interpretations, results, vocabularies, voices,
Self-Reflexive Practices
In bringing the understanding of reflexivity to bear on ourselves, we acknowledge that we
take the focus away from what other researchers are doing with regard to reflexivity and
turn the spotlight on ourselves, possibly earning the criticism of narcissism as a result. In
trying to be reflexive we naturally face the sorts of problems that others face and we do
not intend to set ourselves up as somehow being immune from the problems that beset
other scholars. We hope, however, that we can fruitfully bring the range of reflexive
practices that we have identified to bear on our own efforts at knowledge production.
We start by confessing our criterion for successful reflexivity; that is, whether it makes
a productive difference. We believe some kind of tangible result should be demonstrated,
such as ideas, concepts, challenges to conventional thinking, or suggestions for new
research. Being productive does not necessarily mean being positive negating or
deconstructing ideas is also a productive outcome. Going through the intimate relation
between the researcher and their knowledge in a reflexive loop should, we believe, lead
to some novel (re)descriptions, (re)interpretations or (re)problematizations that add some
quality to the text and the results it communicates. We also believe that another purpose
of reflexivity is to improve research and theorizing producing fieldwork, texts or
theoretical results that are better in some distinctive way than they would be without
reflexivity. The meaning of better is not self evident it may be more creative, offering
a broader set of ideas/interpretations, more ethically informed or sensitive or avoiding
getting caught by the social conventions or fashions. Nonetheless, it seems clear that we
favour instrumental reflexivity (Weick, 1999): for us, reflexivity is not primarily an end in
itself, but a means to improve research in some way.
We therefore present a classification which, we tell readers, constitutes a new way of
thinking about reflexivities rather than reflexivity; and about practices that come to be
known as various forms of reflexivity. Thus we argue that our categorization constitutes
CONCLUSIONS
We believe that reflexivity is important to the understanding of what happens in
research. Reflexivity means thinking through what one is doing to encourage insights
about the nature of social science and, especially, the role that language, power/
knowledge connections, social interests and ideologies, rhetorical moves and manoeu-
vring in the socio-political field play in producing particular accounts. It may also inspire
creativity through opening up for new perspectives and providing reference points for
what one is doing and to avoid or minimize certain harmful aspects of research that
follow from lack of reflexivity. To this end, we have analysed the existing work on
reflexivity and then categorized and conceptualized it in terms of four common sets of
practices: as multi-perspective, multi-voicing, positioning and destabilizing. We have also
introduced a framework of reflexivity around a dialectic between positive and negative
positions: R- and D-reflexivity. This allows us to understand in more depth the different
ways in which reflexivity can be achieved. We also believe that these conceptualizations
NOTES
[1] For a review of reflexivity in other disciplines, see Lynch (2000).
[2] This is not to deny that the sets of practices include some elements of both: destabilizing practices offer
some sort of alternative understanding even Foucauldian ideas on how knowledge produces rather
than reveals truth says something about how subjects are created; in the case of multi-perspectivist
practices, there is frequently a partial or minimalist deconstruction when one perspective is used to
disturb another (Alvesson, 1996).
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, Power and Organization. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neo-positivism, romanticism and localism. A reflexive approach to interviews.
Academy of Management Review, 28, 1333.
Alvesson, M. and Skldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Arrington, C. and Francis, J. (1989). Letting the chat out of the bag: deconstruction, privilege and
accounting research. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 14, 128.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In Holquist, M. (Ed.), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by
M. M. Bakhtin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barge, J. K. (2004). Reflexivity and managerial practice. Communication Monographs, 71, 7096.
Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.